The Instigator
HermanGomez95
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points
The Contender
dnelms77
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Resolve: Does homosexuality have a negative effect on society?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
HermanGomez95
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/12/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 543 times Debate No: 78604
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

HermanGomez95

Con

Having read a few of my opponent’s comments on the issue, seen him debate similar topics on four separate occasions, and taken an interest in debating particular assertions he’s made against homosexuality, I’ve decided to formally debate this issue with him. Should he accept, he should know that this debate will have shared BoP, meaning that we will both have to prove our assertions.

This debate aims to resolve the issue regarding whether or not homosexuality has a negative effect on society. I have taken the con position, meaning I feel that homosexuality does not have a negative effect on society at all. My opponent will argue this with me.


The debate rounds structure as follows.

Round 1: Challenge and definitions
Round 2: Opening Arguments
Round 3: Rebuttals
Round 4: Rebuttals
Round 5: Closing Statements (no new arguments)


Should my opponent accept, let’s agree to keep this civil but impassioned!

dnelms77

Pro

I would fist like to thank the Con for this challenge and I dutifully accept. I am going to be taking the Pro side of this argument, meaning that I feel that homosexuality has a negative effect on society.

I will follow the debate round structure just as the just as my opponent has written.

Let's keep it civil and may the best person win.
Debate Round No. 1
HermanGomez95

Con


Thanks to my opponent for graciously accepting this debate! I have a feeling this will be an engaging debate!


Opening Arguments: Firstly, I fully believe that homosexuality is something a person is inherently born with, and therefore, should not be persecuted. Secondly, there is no evidence supporting the assertion that homosexuality harms society in any way. I feel that anyone who begs to differ only does so out of some prejudicial nature they've acquired over time. As a gay man myself, I feel that I’ve done nothing to harm society. In this debate I shall attempt to refute any evidence my opponent gives against my assertion that homosexuality does nothing to harm society. I will also be arguing that homosexuality actually helps society by 1.) allowing continued profits in marriage, 2.) providing continued, and in some cases more supportive home for adopted children, and finally, 3.) producing a natural way to control the population surplus.


With my opening statements complete, I’ll turn the debate over to my opponent!


dnelms77

Pro

Opening Arguments: I do not believe that homosexuality is something that people are born with. I strongly believe that homosexuality is a result of a choice that the individual makes. I also believe that homosexuality has had a negative effect on society and I will support my claim with evidence and talking points.

(1) People are not born homosexual or heterosexual, it is the way that the individual is raised what they go through in their lives that influences their decisions.

(2) I also do not see a gay couple being denied service in a Christian setting as persecution, but rather the people staying true to their beliefs. Ever since the new found legality of homosexuality and the rights behind it there have been and will be a lot of changes to what we once knew as America. These changes, in a lot of places have had a negative affect on America.

(3) Finally, I believe that homosexual couples do not contribute to the population growth of a city. In fact, I think the growth of gay couples will only be more of a detriment to population growth due to the inability to have children.

With my opening statements being complete, I would like to turn this over to my opponent for his first round of rebuttals.
Debate Round No. 2
HermanGomez95

Con

This round will consist of two parts. Firstly, I shall elaborate on my arguments. Secondly, I shall address Con’s arguments.


1. A) Society financially profits from homosexuality because of the additional marriages it brings.


In other words, since gay marriage is legal, more marriage licenses are sold… thereby allowing society to profit from it. A common source I use to support this fact is gaymarriage.procon.org. In the pro section of the page, they state, “Gay marriages can bring financial gain to federal, state, and local governments and can help boost the economy. Government revenue from marriage comes from marriage licenses, higher income taxes in some circumstances (the so-called "marriage penalty"), and decreases in costs for state benefit programs. In July 2012 New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced that gay marriage had contributed $259 million to the city's economy since the practice became legal there in July 2011.” [1]


1. B) Society benefits from homosexual adoption because they provide further support for children in need of adoption.


This is somewhat similar to my gay marriage argument. Since heterosexual adoption benefits society, homosexual adoption must as well. HOWEVER, my opponent will undoubtedly argue that a child needs both a maternal and paternal figure in it’s life. This argument is false because it demotes single parents. It also does not have sufficient evidence to support its claim. This is problematic because my assertion does have sufficient evidence. To cannibalize off of earlier debates I did of this nature, I’ve elected to quote my earlier arguments for the sake of time.


A compelling brief of The American Psychological Association, The California Psychological Association, The American Psychiatric Association, and The American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy as Amici Curiae in support of Plaintiff-Appellees. (Perry v. Schwarzenegger). Under argument IV, part B literally states, “There is no scientific basis for concluding that gay and lesbian parents are any less fit or capable than heterosexual parents, or that their children are any less psychologically healthy and well adjusted.” [2]


I’ve taken the liberty of selecting a few quotes from the brief that I feel support my argument immensely.


“Although it is sometimes asserted in policy debates that heterosexual couples are inherently better parents than same-sex couples, or that the children of lesbian or gay parents fare worse than children raised by heterosexual parents, those assertions find no support in the scientific research literature.”



“Indeed, the scientific research that has directly compared outcomes for children with gay and lesbian parents with outcomes for children with heterosexual parents has been consistent in showing that lesbian and gay parents are as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents.”


“Most research on this topic has focused on lesbian mothers and refutes the stereotype that lesbian parents are not as child oriented or maternal as non-lesbian mothers. Researchers have concluded that heterosexual and lesbian mothers do not differ in their parenting ability”


“Nor does empirical research support the misconception that having a homosexual parent has a deleterious effect on children’s gender identity (i.e. one’s psychological sense of being male or female) development.”


1. C) Since homosexuals cannot reproduce, the nature of our “lifestyle” possibly offers a humane solution to the surplus population.


Now this is a very tricky argument… one that may unsettle a lot of people. However, I feel it justifies my assertions that homosexuality helps and does not hinder society. The idea behind the argument is that since society is at a growing rate of overpopulation, homosexuals choosing to not have children through the means of surrogacy might actually help society by not adding to the overflowing population number. While this argument may be somewhat harsh, it does not demote heterosexual or homosexual couples. It only states the fact that the world is overpopulated and homosexuality may provide an effective solution to that problem.


___________________


2. A) “People are not born homosexual or heterosexual, it is the way that the individual is raised what they go through in their lives that influences their decisions.”


This assertion may have some validity to it, however there are also many ways to attest it. One of which is the idea of a homosexual being raised and taught about the glorious affects a good marriage to a nice woman. Many of us were raised by such teachings. Secondly, my opponent does not address several bits of evidentiary documents supporting the idea that people are inherently born gay or straight.


Of these documents, I’ve requoted a few select sources I feel get my point across.


“Humans aren't the only species that has same-sex pairings. For instance, female Japanese macaques may sometimes participate in energetic sexual stimulation. Lions, chimpanzees, bison and dolphins have also been spotted in same-sex pairings. And nearly 130 bird species have been observed engaging in sexual activities with same-sex partners.” [3]


“Scientists have found even more evidence that sexual orientation is largely determined by genetics, not choice. That can undermine a major argument against the LBGT community that claims that these people are choosing to live unnaturally.”[4]


“We know, from many twin and adoption studies, that sexual preference has a genetic component.” [5]


“Scientists have uncovered the strongest evidence yet in the debate of whether people are ‘born gay’.” [6]


While these articles may appear subjective and speculative, they provide sufficient reasoning that people are born gay.


Another compelling source, one that actually provides scientific data, is the widely groundbreaking study Psychological Medicine. In the study, the abstract concludes the following: “Conclusions Results, especially in the context of past studies, support the existence of genes on pericentromeric chromosome 8 and chromosome Xq28 influencing development of male sexual orientation.” [7]


While there is no irrefutable evidence that a person is born gay, as scientific studies continue to evolve, the validity of this notion because more and more accepted.


To finalize my opinions of this argument, I’ll directly quote my arguments from an earlier debate.


Let’s look at the facts: attraction is something developed without outside influence. (hypothetically, someone cannot make another person inherently attracted to something they did not originally find attractive.) Hence, attraction is naturally occurring and cannot be dictated by society. Homosexuality is the sole attraction to someone of the same gender. Since attraction is naturally occurring, homosexuality is also naturally occurring.


Now, there are cases in which people assert that society allotted them to be gay and have relations with members of the same sex. This is true. However, the notion that their attraction was a choice is not. Their sudden attraction to someone of the same sex simply means they’ve realized they can find someone attractive. In more specific terms, it means their sexuality has developed further.


For someone to say that homosexuality is a choice, they must also concede that heterosexuality is a choice. This suddenly introduces the argument that gays can chose to be straight and straights can chose to be gay. However, nearly all heterosexuals will assert that they cannot be gay because they cannot find it in themselves to be attractive to someone of the same gender.


To make a long story short: people can chose to carry out a homosexual act, but cannot chose to be homosexual. Attraction is something developed over time that has nothing to do with the nurture aspect of society. It is something people are inherently born with that develops as they explore their inner being, because of this, people should not be viewed as abominable. They should be accepted for being who they are.


2. B) “I also do not see a gay couple being denied service in a Christian setting as persecution, but rather the people staying true to their beliefs. (…)These changes, in a lot of places have had a negative affect on America.”


I’ll respond to such claims with a few questions.


1.) How far can the denials go? Can a Christian nurse deny services to a dying homosexual? Can a government employee deny wedding licenses to homosexuals?


2.) If a Christian can justify denying a homosexual service based on their beliefs, can a homosexual do the same to a Christian? If no, then why is there a double standard?


3.) You state that a lot of places have had a negative affect because of homosexuality. Which places? What affects?


These questions need to be answered if we are to take your second argument serious.


2. C) “Finally, I believe that homosexual couples do not contribute to the population growth of a city. In fact, I think the growth of gay couples will only be more of a detriment to population growth due to the inability to have children.” This is true. But this is not a negative effect on society. Therefore, this argument is moot.



Now that I’ve addressed my opponent’s arguments, as well as elaborating on my own, I turn the debate over to my opponent.


Citations.


1. http://gaymarriage.procon.org...


2. http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov...


3. http://www.livescience.com...


4. http://www.natureworldnews.com...


5. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...?


6. http://www.pinknews.co.uk...


7. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

dnelms77

Pro

dnelms77 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
HermanGomez95

Con


Since my opponent has forfeited the previous round, I’ll extend all arguments I’ve made so that he may have a fair chance. I’m sure he’s just busy, a concept I’m all too familiar with. I’ll see him in the next round.


dnelms77

Pro

dnelms77 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
HermanGomez95

Con


My opponent has failed at honoring this debate. He posted lackluster arguments with little to no evidentiary claims. He also forfeited. This should result in an immediate concession. So, with vehemence, I urge you to vote Con!


dnelms77

Pro

dnelms77 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Sarra 2 years ago
Sarra
HermanGomez95dnelms77Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
HermanGomez95dnelms77Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture.